For academic deficiencies. He called me one day and he said you got a big mouth but not much of a brain. You have to figure out something you can do with your life. Do can be a conservative rabbi or you could be a lawyer. I wasnt smart enough to be a rabbi, so i became a lawyer. At age 16. 5, i was a failure, and by age 17 and a half, i was at the top of my class in Brooklyn College with straight as. I never got a b. And i think the reason was i didnt change as much as the school changed. I went to college where anything went. Youre punished essentially for raising questions. The classmates would have been trying to get into columbia. Wise decision based on my grades and i was so lucky the Brooklyn College was a free school and had an exam that you could take to get in so that is what turned me around. So, one person told me i was spared, why have a lot of respect for told me i was smart and i said i just have a good memory. He said you were actually smart. That son can and gave me a little confidence. You once told me that you had two things for your work, outrageous and free. I do have my cases for free and i represented lots of people, for example i represent soldiers and First Responders and Police Officers and people perform an enormous Public Service but are underpaid. And so, i have a policy representing them for free and in my book stand your ground i talk about representing the colonel, the hero of black hawk down in mogadishu when he was being investigated for creating an atmosphere around what some of the soldiers they have acted irresponsibly and we got the charges dropped. I represented a woman years ago who was locked in a mental hospital, and was a case where her family was trying to get rid of a nuisance rather than a true case of mental illness. The of their day i was thinking about that and she came up to me in a book signing and reminded me that i had, quote, saved her life. Two young boys on death row who were innocent. Her father had committed murders for which they were sentenced to death and i represented them and that took me nine years. Somebody asked me what my biggest fear was and i said we didnt know he had any money and they said he didnt, but when i was able to help them get free and return to his wife and family and he whispered in my either the hebrew blessing to free the imprisoned, the was the biggest thing that i will never get. In terms of the outrageous, why not . If im representing billionaires, why not charge what the going rate is and i use my billionaire cases to find my court cases. You said the greatest wonder of the 20th century was committed by president clintons lawyer in the paula jones case. Can you explain that a little bit . To this day i cannot imagine why the president of the United States, who had his choice of any lawyer in the country would take a lawyer who didnt tell us that he had the option not to have to testify about his sex life in the paula jones case. All they had to do is not settled the case, but just go to the clerks office, deposit the check for seven and 50 which was the amount of lawsuit, and the case is over. But he never told the president that he had that option. He only told them he could either settle the case or he didnt want to settle on positive terms or he would have to litigate. Weigel the president that, he was shocked and he didnt know that he had this opportunity. So i called him on the phone and i said is it true you didnt tell the president of this option . She said absolutely its true. He said it would have been a stupid idea. I citizen that his decision to make and not your decision . Well, that is what he didnt tell the president and i feel that was the greatest legal blunder to talk to the president and almost got him and i did and the idea that of president has to testify about his sex life is so beneath the dignity of the presidency it doesnt mean that he should have done at. He wouldnt have had to testify if he didnt do it, but if he didnt testify and simply said that the dignity of the presidency does not permit me to talk about anything private, adding that he would have survived him. But that is his decision to make. A lawyers job is to tell them what their options are. And taking the stand committee wanted all that story . Actually, since i wrote this book, i may have committed another one. Let me be very clear. My son was 10yearsold, and he had very serious brain surgery, but he had very serious brain surgery when he was 10yearsold, and he recovered very well and went back to work. He always went to work selling newspapers in the square and one day they beat him up for his money, 3, 5 that he had and beat him in the head and knocked a2 out. Then they were arrested and when they met in court again, they came over and said unless you drop the charges, the next time we are going to throw you in front of a train. So i saw these kids and i looked up to them and i mentioned the name of the man i was representing at the time. I was representing him only on a marijuana charge, but he was a notorious hit man for the mall. He killed his clients and in particularly brutal ways. And all i did is mentioned the name of my client and told these kids how much mike clay and admired me and made it clear that if they touched my son again, my client would find out about. They got down on their hands and knees and begged me not to do it. I probably committed crime. But the next one was just recently a few months ago when my son again had a problem, went to the hospital, and when he got out, he was opening a cab door, i was with him and a woman was sitting there when she dropped her bottle of wine and broke. My son immediately said let me pay for that and i apologize. But he came around and started to punish my son. And here i am a 75yearold and i leaned back and i punched him in the shop, mocked his glasses off and he ran away. Probably that was as old, not with a deadly weapon, but i would do it again any minute. Anybody attacks my children, my loved ones i grew up in brooklyn. We were street kids. What has been the strangest were the single funniest moment that you have had . I won a case by telling a joke. I was representing the movie i am curious yellow. Anybody watching that . Is on general television today. Probably it would get an r rating. The man that showed that was almost sentenced to a year in jail for shoving a mob scene film. The argument had never been made in court and ultimately succeeded in front of that least this judge. What went on inside of the theater was utterly irrelevant. The government had no stake in the inside of a theater. The only had rights to protect the public outside of the theater. The judge didnt seem to be getting the argument. And i said we had a little conference and i said maybe this will make the point. Reminded of the story of a jewish man Walking Around the town and his watch broke and he sold the store with watches and clocks in the window and he said can you fix my watch . He said i dont fix watches, i perform circumstance circumcisions pittard i said why you have watches and clocks in your window . He said what do you want me to put in the window . I told the judge the joke and he laughed and he said it really depends on what is in the window you told me story about your father and the argument that was made your father had learned something. Its funny because generally, when i represent the films coming and believe me represented my share of them. Ive done frontal nudity, side nudity, upside down, every single kind of nudity. Generally i dont watch the film. For example after, i watched i represent the film deep throat and i represented the actor harry reid. To this day i have not seen the film because i want to make the point the judge, this is not about the film. This is about twice. I favor a womans choice to abortion. Ive never witnessed gay sex but i favor the right of gay people to do whatever they want in the privacy of their home. I have to see something to think that the state has no right to control it. So i have never seen the film and i have no interest in seeing the film and in making sure that you dont have to see if you dont want to, but you can if you choose to so that is the argument that i make when it comes to film. Maybe somebody will learn something from the film and maybe they will learn the wrong things but you can learn the wrong thing from reading the bible. That is not the limit on the First Amendment that you might learn the wrong thing. You are a young man and you compared to you. I think you have six months on me. Only 50 years of teaching Harvard Law School, this is the last semester, right . What is the future hold . Who knows. I dont think of this as retirement i think of it as a career change. I had the same job since the president of the Great University in 20 years that may be a world record considering the presidencies. By the way, of the new book on the presidency derailed is a brilliant book and it is not only about the presidency but its about leadership failure, success. I think that when you get to the hour age, you do think about what you would like to do that you havent done. People ask me all the time what have you done and i still have qualms and i dont want to miss anything. So im going to write more books, im going to get more cases. The only thing im not going to do is the 10,000 students range from ted cruise on the right to Eliot Spitzer. Now, dont blame me for i will take responsibility for Eliot Spitzer because he worked for me as a Research Assistant and he was one of the best i had. One day i said to him you are working so hard. Go out and have some fun. Well, i dont know [laughter] the response of devotee is the political view and my job is not to turn the conservatives and liberals or liberals and conservatives but better and political thinkers. The same thing as true as a liberal. The book sets the scene worthy of a biographer is presented as a witness taking the stand, to extend the metaphor who do you see as the judge and as the jury . Its a great question. And america of course the ultimate the legal system is determined more by what the American People think than of what the judges think. No matter what the Supreme Court has said about obscenity, clearly turn on your cable television, go to any video store, go on the internet coming and we see the public has prevailed. You can see and watch anything. Obviously not pornography because that exploits children and that is an ongoing crime, but when we are dealing with adults, anything goes. So by the end of the ultimate jury is the people. But the judges, maybe my students, particularly wall students get i want them to read this book giving it i want them to learn about not only the law but how to live the passion of your time and how to look back and say i missed this or that or the other thing. I want to convey those lessons to the jury. You dont mention in the book is there such a moment i never thought of anything but doing being a criminal lawyer. All of my life i knew i wanted to argue with people, ive wanted to be contentious and confrontational. That is who i was and i think the secret of success if there is any is to know what you are and not who you want to be or what somebody wants to make of you. The difference between the two courtships is Justice Goldberg who wanted to remake me in his image. I had no interest in being a judge. Judge david wanted her to be myself coming and being myself always meant being contentious, confrontational, and as you remember in reading the book there were two characters. There is the one that you see on television pointing his finger at the next guy, always trying to get the last word, and then the one that never wins an argument with his family who was a complete and a total pushover who hates confrontational at home or with my friends, and i try to live a life that balances the character and the New York Times reviewer who gave the book a good review says she wishes more of the book had been written rather than the character. And that is an actual point. I think mostly the character wrote the book. Hes a much more interesting guy. If you want to read a book you dont want to read about boring al whose wife tells him what to do and children boss him around. You much prefer to read about the character. He is a much more interesting guy. On a related note device and a little schizophrenic . [laughter] you briefly considered why they are over represented and feel and one theory that you are a lovely acquainted with is that they face a pervasive discrimination for many years and a good knowledge of means of protecting themselves. Falling on this, and you mentioned that your grandfather contrived affidavits, can you expand on that . I dont think that theyre over represented in the wall. They are underrepresented in professional football and professional basketball. When i was 15 or 16i much preferred to have been the point guard for the New York Knicks or the shortstop for the brooklyn dodgers, but nature didnt point me in that direction. So, they have dominated in many parts of the world at least numerically the Legal Profession that was true of england and france and north africa. It was true in the former soviet union and certainly in the United States. Part of the reason is they are always on trial. We have always been accused. You were at fault during the inquisition, the dreyfus affair, you name it. Weve needed lawyers and abraham argued about to i dont think it is in our nature think it is in the religion. It tells you what you cant do and the other figures out what you can get away with. I think it is quite natural there are jewish lawyers and i think it is interchange i notice some on my glasses that some of the more dominant lawyers now represent racial minorities, women are becoming dominant figures in asianamericans, africanamericans, latino americans. To everything there is a season. I dont know what the season of the jewish influence into law will continue as it has in the past. 75yearsold, 50 years of teaching my 30th book, who knows what the future holds. 500 pages, i could have written 5,000 pages. I only deal with me be 5 of my cases. I wanted to write about the First Amendment in my views on National Security being balanced. It can at first time because i anticipate the problems, balancing the National Security and privacy, balancing the censorship and National Security. I wanted to write about how science influences law. Almost all of my criminal cases pyrrophyte had 36 cases dealing with Death Penalty cases, homicide, attempted homicide, all of those kind of cases. And most of them by science. Most of you know the case. This is the last well known case. Represented a woman that allegedly killed her boyfriend, much older richman. She allegedly had another young her boyfriend, allegedly killed her older boyfriend by compressing his chest so that his lungs couldnt expand and he couldnt breathe. And the proof is that there was a button on his body that corresponded to the buttons on his shirt in exactly the same place and size. It seemed like compelling evidence. When i got the case on the appeal and i generally an appellate lawyer, i looked at the picture and saw something suspicious and i had blown up many times in size and i showed it to the chief dermatologist at the hospital and sure enough he concluded by very careful look at the structure and others in the alleged ruse that it wasnt a bruzual but i was a tumor that had existed well before this incident, and therefore it proved nothing. We won the case and we got it reversed, she won the acquittal and she is now living happily with her two children, and running an art gallery. I want to write about cases like that and write about cases involving the conflict among the signs on the one hand and public perception. Everybody thought she was guilty. After all, she is a woman with the weekend and he is the older guy. You think you know it until you look at the science, and the science sometimes can upset some of the most fundamental faiths people have based on what they think is common sense. How would you characterize the relationship between lawyers and judges, are there any particular examples . I can tell you that this lawyer they are often a contentious relationship. There is a joke about the Angel Gabriel called Sigmund Freud and said we need a consulate having delusions of grandeur she thinks that he is a federal judge. When you have appeared between as many judges as i have come at the arrogance that some of them have, some of them dont come some of them are very humble. Hes a phenomenal federal judge in new york and doesnt even like to wear robes, he likes to come down on the same level as the litigants, that you have these judges that think that they know everything and they think that they are supposed to control the legal system. They are not the best and the brightest and even the Supreme Court of the United States today i think is mediocre Supreme Court. Doesnt have very many really firstrate lawyers. The chief justice was the first grade appellate lawyer and he certainly qualified. Many of the others are professorial and they are good professors, but when you see some of the opinions that come down, they lack the practical insight as to what happens in the courtroom. The Supreme Court needs practicing lawyers, particularly practicing criminal lawyers, some that have worked on the defense. There are several former prosecutors, the but the judges often are arrogant they irrigate with the jurys should do and it is an unsettling relationship and it should be a contentious relationship between the judges and lawyers. The lawyers have to defend their clients and i do not like what i call sara lees lawyers. Nobody doesnt like sara lee. Im not sara lee. A lot of people dont like me including some judges and i think it is good that made. Let me take you into some controversial areas. Do you have any thoughts about the situation of israel . [laughter] thank you for that one. Yes i do. There are three options with iran. One is that iran gets a nuclear bomb. That is a horrible option to consider. They already have the Delivery System that can deliver the Nuclear Bombs to europe. They will have the systems that can deliver the bombs to the United States. They are potentially a suicide nation. One of the leaders, the liberal leaders said look, if israel were to drop the bomb, if iran were to drop the bomb and kill two or 3 million, israel would retaliate by dropping the bomb and killed ten to 20 million muslims and the tradeoff would be worth it because that would wipe out the jewish state and islam would still survive. They cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. The second worst thing would be a military attack and the second worst thing, the worst thing is for iran to develop nuclear weapons. The second worst thing that could have happened in the 1930s would have been for england and france to attack 1945 to 1936 and the worst was not to attack but to allow them to be to look into the most powerful military in the world with tens of thousands of people that could have been saved having been killed. So short of those extremes, there were two other options. One, diplomacy and i fever diplomacy. I want to see it tried. The diplomacy will only work if the sanctions are maintained. So the options include keeping the sanctions. I do not understand the american position that says lets weaken the sanctions and lets eliminate some sanctions in exchange for the iranians doing what . To nothing. They are saying we wont continue to develop nuclear weapons. We will have a standstill in exchange for eliminating the sanctions. It is a down negotiating position. We are then put in the position of negotiating from the position of weakness. I do not want to see the war and the best way to make sure that doesnt happen is to make sure the sanctions are kept in place were increased. If you can negotiate a good deal that will give up the nuclear program, and coming eliminate the sanctions. Nobody wants to see the unnecessary sanctions that dont reduce the sanctions until there is a commitment to eliminate the nuclear program. Right now, we are in a disastrous course. A disastrous for america and the world. The french recognize that, the israelis recognize that. Many in the state department recognize that and in the Treasury Department recognize that. I hope the president and secretary of state both of whom are friends of mine and both of whom have tremendous admiration for personally get to understand if you want to stop the war, you have to negotiate from the position of strength. Succumb keep the sanctions up. Dont let them out. What can be done to advance israel and the world . Israel should be actively engaged in peacemaking with the palestinians. They should not expanding a settlement building i believe. I think that the twostage solution is the only reasonable solution and the least. It has to involve sacrifices on both sides and end any of the right of return for palestinians the what flood israel with people who do not approve of there being a nation state for the jewish people. Eventually, theyre has to be land compromise, whereby israel maintains its boundaries of the security border now. But, exchanges land for land. I think Everybody Knows what the solution would look like. We need the world to bring it about and there has to be the greater will on all sides of the trying to the early on the part of israel and then on palestinians and the United States so the world to focus on the problem of the middle east which is iran. Let at me bring us back home. How do we balance the issues of the National Security . Badly. We dont do a very good job. We over classified enormously. If he were to look at everything that is classified today, i think that you would come to the conclusion 90 of it is designed to protect their reputations incumbent administrators rabun protect the natural wonders of the country. That is what inspires people like snowden and manning and elsburg to engage in civil disobedience. We have to start declassifying and keep fewer secrets. We have to make sure that the real secrets and the names of the spies and locations of safe houses, the code to the weapons and to the satellites are kept secret. It should be a crime to affirm that, but the way that they are written today is so absurd. Anything that is disclosed is a crime. Its absolutely a crime for the New York Times to publish classified information even though they say based on the classified sources we are telling you the following. They brag about it because we have a policy not going after the New York Times that the statute permits it. We have to rewrite the National Security law and strike a better balance and abolish the court. The fisa court is a disaster. Its not a real court. Nothing should be called a court when both sides do not have an opportunity to appear in front of it. You have to have a group of lawyers that have a security clearance at present the devils advocate on every National Security warrant that say private interest have to trump the political, the people, you have to have both sides presented and then you can have a balanced judgment by the court tells a little more on snowden and how the country is handling that issue. Islanders and the argument that he committed a crime. He took an oath he wouldnt reveal classified material and he did. They were published to the great embarrassment and perhaps to the loss of the National Security. He media hero but my view is he ought to come back to the United States, stand trial, make his defense in the court of the Public Opinion and the court of law and take the consequences of the civil disobedience the we Martin Luther king did and the way the others that had been started with john paul. Retial the information in the violation of the law and then run away. To me that is not a sign. I andros and what hes doing, but i think it would be better for everybody if he came back and stood trial. White you think people still ask about the case . He wasnt a very important case in the law but in the racial divide in the United States it really revealed the racial divide that we thought that we had put behind us. Like in the Trayvon Martin and zimmermann case. People took sides. And i think that is why people still less me about it. When i come to places like this, people say i think we are related. When i was doing the adjacent in case, even my mother denied being related to me. [laughter] i mean, it was really on popularity. By the way, people didnt hate me during the trial. Hes a guilty defendant in this due process. He didnt mean when he was acquitted. How could you have done that . We didnt win that case to keep the secret is the prosecution lost it. They did everything wrong. They tried on the gloves without knowing under the California Law you could have tried it on outside of the presence of the jury to see if it fit and then to decide whether to do it in front of the jury. It was done for the first time in front of the jury whether or not it fit or o. J. Didnt make it fit people can disagree but you dont do an experiment like that unless you try it first just like you dont ask a question unless you know the answer you dont try it on unless you know what is going to affect. People still talk about it. Let me ask a different question. How has your level of religious observance changed over the years . Quite dramatically. I was orthodox and i never ate a cookie that didnt have a little circle around it that represented the certification. Something the dean of the Harvard Law School did when i was about 25 and just starting out she invited me and all of the women in the class that were 14 or 14 after going around the table asking all of the women why they were taking the place of man lawyers when they wanted to come here and meet and marry harvard men. That was the old days. Let me tell you how the change history. One day this is a name dropping story, my wife and i invited bill and Hillary Clinton to come to the synagogue on Marthas Vineyard the second year in the presidency and they came and we had dinner together afterwards and i asked her why she hadnt gone to the Harvard Law School and she said they didnt want me. They accepted me, but when i went to the christmas dance, i had letters from harvard and yale and i showed it to the professor and said where should we go and they said we have as many women as we need a and a deal is more suited to the feminine mentality, you ought to go to yale. As a result, she went and met bill clinton and if she hadnt come he would never have been president. So this professor changed history. We found out what it was and he was on the International Court of the justice, but harvard was loaded in those days and didnt think that women were able to think like lawyers. When i had dinner at the deans house, he came to me afterwards and said how come you didnt eat my wifes roast beef, didnt you like it . Plus kosher . He said you are still, even the catholic has given this up, dont you think you ought to have your people change . I thought he was joking. I said i will talk to my people. [laughter] about a week later i saw him in the hall and i said i spoke to my people and they said weve been doing this for 3,000 years, maybe a few more and i to think that kept me kosher for an additional four or five years. But eventually, my religious observance changed into Political Support for the soviet newberry, israel all the way disagree you can see on some of the policies, and i became less observant. Go to the synagogue from time to time and mostly if i enjoy the singing and the nostalgia. But i discovered ones that i was not a theological person. I was on an airplane taking my son to college and the airplane had to make a crash landing. We didnt know if we would survive or not and we had 55 minutes before we could unload all of the fuel and in the 55 minutes never once did i think about him or make a deal with god. I discovered. I didnt describe, i discovered by was not a theological person. I discovered he didnt play role in my life. Here was one more agnostic. Im not in neediest but im agnostic. I dont know. I wrote about a prayer that i wrote when i was 12yearsold. The traditional blessing and i wrote i dont know. Why deny, why not try. So i was a skeptic from the time i was a kid, and i didnt want to inflict my parents religion of my children, and so instead, i instructed my skepticism on my children and none of us know what we knew about this. How does the crime rate change . The most dramatic change of any crime, probably in modern history. When i first started teaching and practicing in the criminal law, they were scandal. We men couldnt get anything right in a fair shot. First of all, you had to have corroboration. The lead time that you need cooperation it wasnt enough. Basically it said everyone is a lawyer. Second coming you needed women were questioned about their sexual history. It was terrible with impunity and everything has changed. Its easier to prosecute a rapist and the amount has gone down dramatically, particularly date rape. When i started to teach a college, date rape was almost acceptable on some campuses. Fraternities and among the athletic teams and men with brad about their conquest. Today you dont find that on the colleges. Colleges and universities get a tremendous amount of credit for having taken this issue very seriously. They havent solved the problem they have understood and improved the situation dramatically. I think we ought to try to bring the audience back into the conversation. Hard questions first. Its hard to get the first question, but the second question. I want to ask a few more about your opinions in the screening for cases. Has it disenfranchised american citizens and puerto rico subject to many civic and class citizens among them not being able to vote for president or members of congress, do you think that its time the Supreme Court to revisit the supreme into the cases to revoke the antiquated plessey versus ferguson decision that remained . I dont know if you know this, but i brought that case a few years ago. We tried to get the Supreme Court to rethink. She was not a constitutional citizen. She was a statutory citizen. We asked them to take the case and they havent been willing to take the case. You are 100 right. There is an equal protection problem, and i think that if we are going to be in control of what it is of puerto rico or any other territories, we have to have complete equal rights for all citizens that includes the right citizenship and every other right citizens born on the mainland in the United States or hawaii and alaska would have. As an advocate of free speech, i wonder what you think about whether it is free speech. With a hard question. If the corporations have the same right just as an aside, my names sake was a guard for the new york giants. The notion that the corporations are people for the purpose of free speech. If only a lawyer could come up with that one. Our robots also going to have the right of free speech . When we have apportionment particularly in the south than voters in some parts of the country, so of course cooperation sar not to have the right of the free speech. For the individuals come for people. Money influences politics coming and was a very difficult case. The aclu which is generally a leftleaning organization was on the side and on the side of money being on the speech i think reasonable people could disagree. If he is a good reporter that john roberts, former student of the law school said to somebody that he was voting on Citizens United to help the republican party. When the justices vote on the party lines as they did with bush v. Gore and as jeff reed reports at least one of them did in Citizens United, that really puts the court into disrepute. At the end of my book i predict, my book is about 100 years, 50 years past and future. I talk about what i think is going to happen over the next 50 years and its going to diminish its influence has it becomes more and more partisan. I just wanted to say hello. I remember you used to give me the laughing term. I would ask about something else. When i look back at Harvard Law School, your class stands out as one of the most hospitable to the conservatives viewpoints, rehnquist and henry i felt comfortable talking in your class is, but i got booed a lot. They havent improved any since then. Its a very critical time and contentious time with a critical legal studies. Im sort of a contemporary and the president was a very on a hospitable place for conservatives. I dont get the sense that that has changed but now even par for law school was an hospitable where a lot of jews have fewer numbers in these places if you are proisrael you are considered a zionist which is the same as a racist and if you want to advocate everything thats labeled and put as an outcast and its worse now. Its better in some ways and worse than others. Of course there are many articulate and brilliant conservatives prepared to speak out. When i first started teaching those views were not expressed so i had to play the devils advocate. I make the case for the Death Penalty. I make the case for positions i dont believe and. With the other groups like that on the issue i dont think it is hard to be a jew and universities today. Its hard to be a jew that strongly supports israel. Making an absurd as that, like god, you realize the world has become absolutely topsyturvy. She would be welcome at some universities that she made that statement. But there is a great cartoon consist of these are Larry Summers lost his job at harvard. Theres a cartoon of him saying to people who fired him, you misunderstood what i said. I didnt say that women are not qualified to be brilliant and mass. Thus what i said. That could have my job at . That would have been aimed an acceptable thing to say. So i think that it is hard harder to be a jewish who openly support College Campuses but in general at harvard if you have a little bit of it takes good in your prepared to stand up and defend your views come to you will never be censored. You will never be shut down. The Yasser Arafat diatomic bursting came and asked me to represent them to buy a palestinian flag in the yard. I said all represent you because you should be able to fly the flag of yost or arafat. But im going to hand out leaflets. Maybe there would have been peace at camp david. As a horrible, horrible mass murder of americans and jewish and others. You can hear my view. And they said fine. That was the First Amendment at its best. The flag goes up. My leaflets go out. Everybody can present their point of view. Some people feel uncomfortable. Nobody said the First Amendment would make you comfortable. Another one of your former student in the late 70s. I did not do very well in your course. The patty hearst trials. My question is, ive done all sorts of law, but one of the things is become more of a community organizer. Theres a guy named barack obama who started off that way. Feedback i have a son who is a labor. One difficulty with lawyers on the blog depending on the Supreme Court as you become distant from the client people really concerned. I did a lot in the d. C. Jails the advice they actually spent my time organizing relatives. I wouldve had more effect on the city government. I guess if you have any comment on the role of lawyers in changing things. Look, lawyers can change the world. A lot of students that come to harvard want to change the world. Better to make it out to a 300,000 the only way is d. C. Corporation and help the rich become superrich in the mega rich become outlandish the rich. Not in a stephen are permitted to follow their dreams because of the way the Legal Profession is structured. Harvard has a very good program of forgiveness of loans if you go into the public interest. Anything that serves the public interest. I encourage nice it is. I tell my event, pay attention. Statistically, more of you will be criminal defense and criminal lawyers. So pay good attention. That probably has been a factor for years. I would like to see more students do what youre doing. I was one of the great horses precisely because he took very contradictory to what the students were normally sane. Thank you yet i appreciate that. Last question. [laughter] im reading your book. You note in the book that theres going to be a lot of litigation. I wonder what you think about with seats for conversion therapy. Those are hard. Im each live rights generally, i dont even understand the issue. Why would anybody care about these issues . Of course after gay people shoo the same rights. I was going up as a crime for a black man to marry a white and are vice versa. I think gay rights will be the same. Can i stay prohibit. Nurse, therapist or my ministers, ordinary people from trying to convert gay people and make them heterosexual, something is a noxious unmistakable, but probably comes with some protection from the First Amendment. Thats the real lesson i try hard to teach in my book. Why would i stand up and support not in. I would hope they would slip on a banana peel and end. But i dont want to stay to be doing it for us. I wanted to be free. Free speech is not free. Free speech is very nice. All of the bill of rights come with enormous cross attached to them and we have to start the balance. One in mississippi wrongly confined. Restricted hopefully in the First Amendment area. Things they should not have been allowed to be spoken is spoken rather than one be erroneously in the. We have to strike ounces in favor of liberty, they do it with some degree of common sense and proportionality. We are a great country. We will survive marching through skokie. We will survive people trying to talk gay people out of being gay. We will survive. We will survive cemex interNational Security. But we would have a hard time surviving the really oppressive regime. I directory mccarthyism. I remember that very well. I never, ever want a repeat in the United States. Thank you all very much. But pleasure. [applause] someone looks at the commodities market on where we eat them what we pay for. She said they shaped Culinary Trends for numerous years. Ms. Newman spoke at the world bank in washington d. C. This is about 40 minutes. Thank you to the world bank for hosting me today. I do appreciate it. I do feel the need to start by saying i am not an economist. I am a food writer. The culinary ryan. Just to explain a little bit about how the book came out, and when i first started my career, i wrote about financial topics. I worked with a small Consulting Company that was then acquired a much larger conglomerate and i was passed with creating content about the equities market. The fixed income market on the one that completely changed my life, the commodities market. So how did that change my life . When i started learning about commodities, of course i realized there were certain projects such as oil and gold, but there is also projects that fall into the Agricultural Commodity segment and those include products like cattle, soybeans, coffee and read like a menu. This is a sign that i was going to be a food writer. Everything came together for me when i read the Financial News weekly barrons and jim rogers is quoted as saying by Brittany Spears to what did he mean by this . He was advising people to purchase orange juice futures and pork belly futures, which no longer trade
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.